To ask how I can explain to DH why page 3 was wrong?

[Ifyourawizardwhydouwearglasses]

He just thinks it was harmless. 'If you don't like it, don't look.' I'd like to educate him but I can't seem to find the words.

He's intelligent but can't seem to get this one.

Correction: I do think it's the Sun's fault, but it's not just the Sun but a much bigger issue. That's what I meant.

I dont think OPs DH is an arse.
I think it was a good question. Imo its about challenging everyday sexism. Its so easy to get beaten down with the tired old responses "just a bit of fun" "you're jealous" "nothing wrong with nudity"

Actually, I agree there is nothing intrinsically offensicpve about human nudity. But page 3 has nothing to do with that issue. It does not normalise human nakedness, it normalises femal sexual objectification.
Unless there's a run of topless middle aged women, ripped 25 year old men in no pants or naked elderly couples that I missed.
No?
Just the barely- into - adulthood women who have been deemed attractive enough to be dribbled over by men then.

I'd have njoyed a nice bloke on page 3.
My DP isn't arsed and I want to work as a cam girl - he's more than happy to let me. As long as I'm happy. the girls aren't forced to do it - they're models. they do that for a living.

You're so lucky you have a DP who lets you do stuff.

And no, the 'girls' aren't forced to do it. We know that.

Nice blokes are available for you to see on the internet, Trix. Save yourself 40p.

So today instead of page 3 a girl in underwear on front page saying more on page 3. And a double page spread of her on 2 & 3.

Not really an improvement.

Just to make sure that loads of women and girls who would rather not have it in their faces thanks have no chance of avoiding it.

They really are cunts aren't they. They are doing the newspaper equivalent of shouting crap at females on the streets. Seriously, it's shitty behaviour. Like upthread - when someone says "I don't like that" to shove it in their face is playground bullying but this is on like mass scale.

They know what their paper is used for IRL and they want that to happen. Utter utter cunts.

Can you really be bothered, op? Do you want to be with someone who can't understand why tits in a newspaper aren't ok?

I'd just punch him in th e face and have done.

Don't be too hard on your DH OP as there are literally millions of people that don't get it.

I'm a man and am more into equality than my wife. Neither she or my two daughters see what the big fuss is about. I tried to explain the various points behind the campaign and whilst they can see why campaigners are doing it, think it's too small and insignificant to be worried about it.

I even asked my youngest daughter about it and she was totally indifferent.

When all is said and done, the rationale behind the campaign is sound but for the tiny cross section of society that it affects, it appears to be difficult for many to take seriously given that every aspect of the campaign itself can be found in spades everywhere else.

I asked my wife what concerns her and the Sun isn't even on the radar as we don't buy it, read it or know anyone who does. However, in terms of things that affect society and our daughters we have the following that is almost impossible to avoid, unless you live in a hole.

Almost any TV advert
Pop videos
Almost any advert in any magazine or public billboard
Any department store window display at Valentine's Day or Christmas
Victoria's Secret or any other lingerie store
Sports on TV, especially F1, Motorsport podiums, Tour de France, boxing etc.
The Internet

Every day, all of the above give out the wrong message and as a parent its a daily fight to educate or minimise exposure. By contrast the Sun doesn't even make it on the list.

I'm behind the campaign and what it stands for but can also understand why people don't get it. It's a shame there aren't more signatures but maybe the 250,000 out of a female population of 25 million is to be expected.

Dont be too hard on your DH, bless him, he's only conditioned to think its ok for women to be underdogs. aww, its not his fault OP. He really doesnt understand due to men being weak and not realising.

OH for god sake really?

When the hell will this end? Its 2015 and men still think women are objects.. who facilitates this.... errr you lot. Women that think men are weak, women that think they need to manipulate another human being. WOMEN are doing this.. so I suggest you DONT

I'm a man and am more into equality than my wife. Neither she or my two daughters see what the big fuss is about. I tried to explain the various points behind the campaign and whilst they can see why campaigners are doing it, think it's too small and insignificant to be worried about it.

Bruce, anther poster and I raised a similar point in a thread on the Feminist Chat forum. Got shot down in flames.

Women buy The Sun. Women will continue to appear in The Sun. Many women are not engaged by this issue.

This 'it's too small and insignificant to be worried about' thing...

I don't know how people expect feminists/campaigners/whatever to get any traction on the big issues, when there are still tits in the news. As long as there are tits in the news, the big stuff will run and run unfettered.

How can you address, for example, low conviction rates for rape and sexual assault, when so many people think it's fine to ogle barely-out-of-teen breasts in the news?

These 'small' things are the base camp of the Everest that has yet to be dealt with.

And besides... as has been said a zillion times before, it is possible to care about, and campaign, on more than one issue.

By putting the big issues first? By making clear that the consensual and legal display of bare breasts is not an invitation to or a defence to rape?

Sorry, but I think you've got things a bit the wrong way round.

But it is a small thing japanese.
In the 80s we had brave feminists protesting at greenham common trying to prevent nuclear armageddon. In 2015 we have posh liberals from north london trying to stop young working class lasses making the easiest money they will ever make. 'Feminism' as taken a wrong turn big style.

By putting the big issues first? By making clear that the consensual and legal display of bare breasts is not an invitation to or a defence to rape?

Bit getting rid of Page 3, which many people have grown up with, would help with taking steps towards changing attitudes towards rape. Without page 3, gettingthe message across that women are not just objects to be fucked would be that bit easier. As has been said a billion times, page 3 is just part of a insidiois drip feed, why not just get rid of it? What is the point of it, why is it necessary, what does it actually achieve?

And it really pisses me of when people, usually blokes, dictate what feminists should be campaigning about.

Issues like FGM (which has been bandied about a lot), are huge complex issues, with cultural and medical connections, and feminists can continue to campaign (as they already do), but its not simple and will not be changed overnight.

Bare tits in a national family newspaper? Well that seems fairly simple to me.

PhaedraIsMyName

I did a search on the demographics and apparently 40% of buyers are female? If Wikipedia is correct then roughly 0.9 million women buy it, which is almost 4 times the number of signatures backing the campaign. I find this quite sad but believe it is due to the paper having such a miniscule impact on the lives of the rest of us.

The UK population is over 50 million so the sun may be the UK's biggest seller but ultimately only counts for less than 4% of people.

The interesting thing for me has been the myriad of opinions (on forums, papers and through discussion) that have helped me understand the many views on this.

One interesting point was made by a model in response to the question of what our children of the future will think. I can't quote directly but statues were raised. Many thousands of years ago, men and women were immortalised by sculptors who sculpted very detailed depictions of people naked. These were placed in public places for the viewing pleasure of the masses.

I'm not saying this is identical to page 3 but it made me question my views on these sculptures. Its true that we can objectify the perfect forms on display but my first thought is definitely not disgust.

In 2015 we have posh liberals from north london trying to stop young working class lasses making the easiest money they will ever make.

Page 3 doesn't pay all that well, and each woman only appears a few times a year don't they? I imagine they make more money from the numerous other glamour modelling jobs they do, photos that won't be seen by kids of a daily basis.

Plus 'working class lads' seem to get by alright without getting their arses out for a newpaper don't they?

Many thousands of years ago, men and women were immortalised by sculptors who sculpted very detailed depictions of people naked

Erm yes, men and women.

I can't remember the last time I saw a naked man on page 3, can you?

Yy will.

Only a few people at news international need to decide about p3. Only the Home Secretary needs to act re a visa for that pick up artist. Only a few people at itv or the board of Oldham need to make a decision about dapper laughs.

So yes, campaigning effort on those things can bring about changes far more readily than in other areas.

So which campaigns are you involved in. Simon?

In the 80s we had brave feminists protesting at greenham common trying to prevent nuclear armageddon. In 2015 we have posh liberals from north london trying to stop young working class lasses making the easiest money they will ever make. 'Feminism' as taken a wrong turn big style.

Okay, this is gonna sound crazy and all as I am a woman but I can actually be concerned about more than one issue at a time.

Also, soft porn in a national newspaper isn't a small issue which you would find out if you read many of the reasoned arguments put forward.

By making clear that the consensual and legal display of bare breasts is not an invitation to or a defence to rape?

Yeah, because currently we're doing a great job on that front.

Rape and sexual assault never happen, right...?

Many thousands of years ago, men and women were immortalised by sculptors who sculpted very detailed depictions of people naked

It. Isn't. About. Nudity.

Ah, is that the mythical campaign to alternate a picture of Michelangelo's David and Manet's Olympia on p3?

I think that p3 and its ilk (lads mags, some music vids, etc etc) do contribute to rape and sexual assault by clearly stating to all of us that women are here as possessions. Just becasue the woman being ogled is consenting does not mean that it does harm. It affects how women and girls are seen and reinforces objectification.
Besides, "choice" is an interesting concept. The fact that this is open to young females as a career, and not to anyone else, simply highlights that females are increasingly aware that they are judged by the way they look in a way that men are not.

Maybe illustrates, rather than highlights.
(On first coffee)